Proposed blight ordinance in Norwalk has no teeth

Published
10:31 am EDT, Sunday, August 11, 2013

To the Editor:

It appears that the Common Council is finally going to consider a proposed blight ordinance.

However, the draft that the ordinance committee has been considering, if enacted, would be ineffective. Instead of modeling their proposal on Stamford's blight ordinance, which has been demonstrated to be effective and fair, or on some other city's proven ordinance, the ordinance committee chaired by Mr. Geake limited the definition of blight and the administrative power in the proposed Norwalk ordinance so that it is doomed to fail.

This is what the slumlords and the proponents of "no change" (translation "no progress") probably want. The only people who should be pleased if the draft blight ordinance is passed are those who think landowners should have the right to do or not do anything they want regardless of the impact on surrounding property owners and on the community, or perhaps politicians who want to defuse the drive for an effective blight ordinance by enacting one that has absolutely no teeth.

The General Assembly has provided a valuable tool for Connecticut towns to protect, preserve and promote public health, safety, and welfare -- to address the problems caused by irresponsible property owners who neglect their properties and violate zoning, health, and building regulations. State law allows towns to enact a blight ordinance, and many towns, including Stamford and Danbury, have enacted such a measure to give themselves additional clout in their efforts to clean up neglected properties and enforce existing regulations.

Under section 7-148 of the General Statutes, towns can adopt an ordinance to prevent housing blight, to prohibit causing blight or allowing a blighted condition to persist, and to impose fines of up to $100 for each day that a violation continues. Each town can broadly define blight for its own purposes and can address properties that are a fire hazard, the site of criminal activity, have overgrown grass, or are in a general state of dilapidation. A blight ordinance is an available, powerful regulatory tool which so far Norwalk has refused to enact.

However, the current proposal would not be effective. The definition of blight in the proposal is not as broad, expansive, and sensible as the definition contained in Stamford's blight ordinance. Mr. Geake has commented that the ordinance avoids any consideration of "aesthetics," which means that it won't touch any condition that could be considered an eyesore or that would have a negative effect on the values of surrounding properties, which is primarily what blight is.

The only thing included in the definition of blight would be violations of pre-existing regulations that have already been cited twice (and not corrected) in the past. In other words, it would do nothing new. And fines can be avoided through appeal, so offending property owners will still be able to drag out court proceedings for years. Time will remain on the side of an offending property owner. And the proposed ordinance would apparently exempt the elderly and disabled from its provisions (and today everyone qualifies as disabled under the Americans With Disabilities Act). Even the zoning regulations don't give a pass based on age or disability status -- and it's hard to see how such exemptions would withstand judicial scrutiny.

If a blight ordinance has proved to be effective in other cities, why not enact a similar, effective ordinance in Norwalk? Why enact a watered down ordinance with no teeth?

Some in Norwalk have rejected the idea of a blight ordinance or wanted to see any ordinance watered down because they believe that Norwalk does not have a serious problem with blight. Many of us in Norwalk disagree, including the residents of Golden Hill, Harbor Shores, and other neighborhoods where responsible homeowners are plagued by the neglect and indifference of others who refuse to maintain their properties.

Many have expressed fears that a blight ordinance would contain too subjective a definition of "blight" or allow too liberal an interpretation of what a violation really means. Of course, none of the towns like Stamford and Danbury (among many other towns) that have enacted anti-blight ordinances have had a significant problem with overly subjective definitions of blight or abuses in enforcement and their blight ordinances have proved effective.

The city should protect the rights of responsible property owners. If a city does not reasonably protect the value of property, no one will want to invest in property in that city, and values will decline and flight becomes inevitable. I would urge the Council to use Stamford's blight ordinance as a model and enact a similar one. And of course if the current Council and Mayor won't support or enact an effective blight ordinance, if they insist on an ordinance that's ineffective, perhaps it's time for a different set of politicians to have their chance.